Another Obama Fustercluck

[rubato]

Trucks continue to be nearly 1/2 of total passenger vehicle sales and I don't think that the 'contractor fudge factor' does much to change that ratio. If we're going to allow that fudge factor we will also have to learn what % of Accords and Camrys are 6-cylinder (lower mileage)

"projected sales" for 2013 are not the same as 'actual sales'; we'll see how it turns out but actual sales to date have the F-150 and Silverado #1 and #2

Top 20 Vehicles
GO TO: Overview Charts | What's Hot Off the Lots | The U.S. Market | Sales and Share of Total Market by Manufacturer
Friday, March 01, 2013
Top 20 vehicles, current month's sales
……………. ……………. YTD 2013
…………….
Ford F - Series PU ……………. 101,330
Chevrolet Silverado PU ……………. 77,088
Toyota Camry ……………. 63,167
Honda Accord ……………. 51,923
Ford Fusion ……………. 50,274
Nissan Altima ……………. 49,189
Toyota Corolla / Matrix ……………. 48,821
Ford Escape ……………. 44,049
Dodge Ram PU ……………. 43,763
Honda Civic ……………. 44,594
Ford Focus ……………. 36,969
Honda CR-V ……………. 38,477
Chevrolet Equinox ……………. 37,872
Chevrolet Cruze ……………. 32,471
Toyota Prius ……………. 33,584
Ford Explorer ……………. 32,598
Hyundai Elantra ……………. 28,393
Hyundai Sonata ……………. 29,254
Chevrolet Impala ……………. 29,577
Chevrolet Malibu ……………. 30,640




http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... sales.html

The fact remains that even at 4$/gal fuel economy is a weak driver for car-buying behavior. According to a study a few years ago fuel costs had zero effect until gas was over $3.75/gal

I'm pleased that behavior appear to be changing but the evidence does not show that fuel costs are a big issue. It is just as likely that people are changing based on the increasing awareness of global climate change or because of a desire to 'look smart' to their neighbors.

This study was from 2007:
http://www.uctc.net/access/31/Access%20 ... Choice.pdf

Most people don't know and don't even calculate what the costs over time are for different vehicles (see pdf).


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

"projected sales" for 2013 are not the same as 'actual sales'; we'll see how it turns out but actual sales to date have the F-150 and Silverado #1 and #2

Projected sales are based on sales from the first 10 months of 2012. People are buying more smaller fuel efficient vehicles than they are buying Silverados & F-150s and it's not a coincidence that gasoline is at its highest price ever.

[rubato]

In order to get a handle on the 'contractor fudge factor' I added to top two sales numbers and then the next two and looked at the ratio between them. for the totals to equal 1 out of 3 trucks would have to be sold to contractors. Is this number plausible? In Calif. it might be but not in Oregon or, I suspect, most other states.


Top 20 Vehicles
GO TO: Overview Charts | What's Hot Off the Lots | The U.S. Market | Sales and Share of Total Market by Manufacturer
Friday, March 01, 2013
Top 20 vehicles, current month's sales ………. ………. combined mileage
……………. YTD 2013
……………. ……….
Ford F - Series PU ……………. 101,330 ………. 13 - 19
Chevrolet Silverado PU ……………. 77,088 ………. 12 - 18
Toyota Camry ……………. 63,167 ………. 25 - 41
Honda Accord ……………. 51,923 ………. 21-26
Ford Fusion ……………. 50,274 ………. 15-39
Nissan Altima ……………. 49,189 ………. 23 - 27
Toyota Corolla / Matrix ……………. 48,821 ………. 29
Ford Escape ……………. 44,049 ……….
Dodge Ram PU ……………. 43,763 ………. 11 - 16
Honda Civic ……………. 44,594 ………. 25-44
Ford Focus ……………. 36,969 ………. 22-31
Honda CR-V ……………. 38,477 ………. 26
Chevrolet Equinox ……………. 37,872 ………. 14 - 26
Chevrolet Cruze ……………. 32,471 ………. 27 - 33
Toyota Prius ……………. 33,584 ………. 50
Ford Explorer ……………. 32,598 ………. 20 - 23
Hyundai Elantra ……………. 28,393 ………. 32
Hyundai Sonata ……………. 29,254 ………. 26-36
Chevrolet Impala ……………. 29,577 ………. 22
Chevrolet Malibu ……………. 30,640 ………. 18 - 26


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/feg2012.pdf

[Crackpot]

Umm the ecoboost f150 gets 16-22

[Scooter]

Why only compare to the next two? Why not take the whole list and note that in the year to date there were 222,000 vehicles sold that get below 20mpg highway, and 458,000 that get greater than 30 mpg highway (your mpg for the Accord and CR-V are off, btw, and for the Corolla that is combined mpg). Even ignoring the effect of pickups bought for commercial agricultural purposes, that demonstrates a clear preference for fuel efficient vehicles. The numbers are even more stark when looking at the top 20 in total vehicle sales for 2012 - 1,357,000 under 20 mpg highway, vs. 2,951,000 over 30 mpg.

[Scooter]

Just so I don't get accused of using selective data, if I take the entire top 30 from that list, the numbers are 1,514,000 under 20 mpg, and 3,272,000 over 30 mpg. I got mpg info here.

[Lord Jim]

Just so I don't get accused of using selective data, if I take the entire top 30 from that list, the numbers are 1,514,000 under 20 mpg, and 3,272,000 over 30 mpg.

That's the fair and honest way to do it; to look at overall sales in the market market...

And of course one still has to adjust for the percentage of pick-up trucks purchased for commercial reasons...

To pick the top two sellers (or even including the next two highest sellers, as rube did in his revision) without looking at overall sales or accounting for sales for commercial use, provides a cherry picked and misleading picture of what's actually taking place in the new car sales market....

(Of course selecting cherry picked numbers to provide a misleading picture is pretty much rube's stock in trade....)

[Grim Reaper]

In order to get a handle on the 'contractor fudge factor' I added to top two sales numbers and then the next two and looked at the ratio between them. for the totals to equal 1 out of 3 trucks would have to be sold to contractors. Is this number plausible? In Calif. it might be but not in Oregon or, I suspect, most other states.

That doesn't work though. People are more likely to want to buy large trucks for commercial use instead of small cars. So the percentage of large trucks being sold for commercial use would be higher than for smaller cars. So it is likely that a significant percentage were sold for commercial use.

After all, Ford doesn't market their F-series as something to take the family to church. They market it as something to haul heavy equipment with.

[rubato]

Umm the ecoboost f150 gets 16-22

I reported the combined mileage figure from the site linked.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

In order to get a handle on the 'contractor fudge factor' I added to top two sales numbers and then the next two and looked at the ratio between them. for the totals to equal 1 out of 3 trucks would have to be sold to contractors. Is this number plausible? In Calif. it might be but not in Oregon or, I suspect, most other states.

That doesn't work though. People are more likely to want to buy large trucks for commercial use instead of small cars. So the percentage of large trucks being sold for commercial use would be higher than for smaller cars. So it is likely that a significant percentage were sold for commercial use.

After all, Ford doesn't market their F-series as something to take the family to church. They market it as something to haul heavy equipment with.

Yes, that was the contention. That is why I said that one out of three of those types of cars would have to be sold to contractors for the numbers sold to non-contractors to be equal.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

Which isn't that unlikely since trucks are generally marketed towards commercial use.

[rubato]

Why only compare to the next two? Why not take the whole list and note that in the year to date there were 222,000 vehicles sold that get below 20mpg highway, and 458,000 that get greater than 30 mpg highway (your mpg for the Accord and CR-V are off, btw, and for the Corolla that is combined mpg). Even ignoring the effect of pickups bought for commercial agricultural purposes, that demonstrates a clear preference for fuel efficient vehicles. The numbers are even more stark when looking at the top 20 in total vehicle sales for 2012 - 1,357,000 under 20 mpg highway, vs. 2,951,000 over 30 mpg.

You distorted it grossly by dropping out the cars with highway mileages between 20 and 30 and using highway mileage which overstates actual fuel efficiency for most drivers? And then you dropped off the bottom 1/3 of the list? A car that gets 22mpg highway would have been eligible for the 'cash for clunkers' program as a low-mileage vehicle.

For someone like myself who has a high percentage of commute miles and less short trips, highway mileage make sense. But for most drivers combined mileage is a better marker.

(your mpg for the Accord and CR-V are off, btw, and for the Corolla that is combined mpg)

I reported the numbers from the .gov site linked and I used combined mileage for all. I reported a range where there were several models with different mileages (V6 and 4cyl Accords for example)

The evidence does not support the contention that car choice is strongly driven by fuel costs. It supports the idea that it is very weakly driven by fuel costs. Most people cannot even tell you how much they are spending per year on fuel or what the difference in the expected fuel/lifetime cost is.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The obesity epidemic probably plays some role as well. If you watch people going out to their cars in a parking lot a lot of the people getting into trucks/SUVs are plus-sized.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I know the city of San Juan...

I know a boat you can get on.....

[oldr_n_wsr]

The fact remains that even at 4$/gal fuel economy is a weak driver for car-buying behavior. According to a study a few years ago fuel costs had zero effect until gas was over $3.75/gal

I think this study is flawed. By my own observations, when gas first starting north of $3.75, prius sales went way up. People waited for the wehicles, and not the standard wait, long waits. I drive the LIE every day and since they opened the HOV lane to single person occupied hybrids like the prius, there are more of them by a 5 to 1 margin than HOV vehicles. Again, my observance during my commutes (6-7am and 4-5pm). Gas has been above $3.75 since before Sandy (early October). While the waits for hybrids may be lower (or gone) that's not because demand has lessend, it's production that has gone up.

I bought a motorcycle back in 2008 when gas went to $4 a gallon. I still needed a somewhat larger car, but for me to commute or take a run around town, the MC and 60mpg does the trick.

[dgs49]

One might very well speculate that the people buying the full-size pickups actually do not have much choice in what they buy - they are stuck with a relatively low-efficiency 2-12 ton vehicle.

If you require a vehicle with an 8-foot bed that can tow something and carry half a ton or more, your options are exactly 5: F150, Silverado, Ram, Titan, and Tundra. Such people might include farmers, businesses, and hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs.

Which is not to deny that lots of people buy pickup trucks because they have doubts about their own manhood, but...

It might explain why these behemoths are the top sellers, year after year, despite the fact that they get terrible gas mileage.

[oldr_n_wsr]

When I was growing up, most families had the "commuting" car, most likely a VW bug and then the "Family" car, most likely a station wagon. Commuting was done with the small most efficient car (commuting) and weekends were for the family car. Even if mom worked, she was usually working a short distance away and took the wagon. Time have changed in both who works, where they work and what they drive.

[Jarlaxle]

Umm the ecoboost f150 gets 16-22

I recall the Ram with the new V6 & 8 speed trans gets something like 17/24.

[dgs49]

Getting back to the point of the thread, I'm quite sure Barry is pleased with these new regs. Having to process crude through another step or two must create a couple jobs somewhere, eh? The fact that it costs people money is irrelevant. This is entirely consistent with his position on the minimum wage. The fact that a couple hundred million people will be paying more for their Big Mac's is their problem, not his.

[Econoline]

Dave, I'm sure that if the price of gasoline went up 1¢, or even 9¢, just to insure the current level of profit for an already *VERY* profitable industry, you'd have no problem with that. But for the price to rise for any socially beneficial purpose...? "OH NOOOES!!!1!!11!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!"

And BTW, it seems that the oil industry has already signaled its intention to raise the price of gas by 6-9 cents/gal. when this rule goes into effect, even if it costs them less than 1¢. As Scooter said:

Gee, whose estimate am I going to believe is more credible, the EPA, that has absolutely no reason to create more work for itself nor to lie about this, or an industry that has proven again and again that it will lie, steal, cheat, kill, and do whatever it can to maximize its profits at the expense of everyone else.

Hmmm, tough call...